https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169716 The amended proviso to Section 174(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was treated as imposing a new condition precedent to admission of appeal by requiring deposit of the amount recoverable in execution. Because the right of appeal is substantive and a pending proceeding is ordinarily governed by the law in force when the original proceeding began, the amendment could not apply retrospectively absent clear express words or necessary implication. The proviso contained no such indication, so the deposit requirement could not be used to defeat an appeal arising from an earlier proceeding. The refusal to entertain the appeal for non-deposit was therefore incorrect. en-us Fri, 13 Jun 1930 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 01 May 2015 15:18:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169716 The amended proviso to Section 174(5) of the Bengal Tenancy Act was treated as imposing a new condition precedent to admission of appeal by requiring deposit of the amount recoverable in execution. Because the right of appeal is substantive and a pending proceeding is ordinarily governed by the law in force when the original proceeding began, the amendment could not apply retrospectively absent clear express words or necessary implication. The proviso contained no such indication, so the deposit requirement could not be used to defeat an appeal arising from an earlier proceeding. The refusal to entertain the appeal for non-deposit was therefore incorrect. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 13 Jun 1930 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=169716